Light Bulbs Disprove Global Warming

Posted: January 14, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, Measurement, opinion
Tags: ,

To go to the technical discussion, search for ‘Overview’.

Science Matters

Dr. Peter Ward explains at The Hill Greenhouse gases simply do not absorb enough heat to warm Earth Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Science is not done by consensus, by popular vote, or by group think. As Michael Crichton put it: “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

The drive to demonstrate scientific consensus over greenhouse-warming theory has had the unintended consequence of inhibiting genuine scientific debate about the ultimate cause of global warming.

Believers of “the consensus” argue that anyone not agreeing with them is uninformed, an idiot or being paid by nefarious companies. The last thing most climate scientists want to consider at this point, when they think they are finally winning the climate wars, is the possibility of some problem with the science of greenhouse-warming theory.

View original post 1,268 more words

  1. JB says:

    Show me a gas created by a greenhouse that is not present in the external atmosphere.
    No such thing as a “greenhouse” gas.

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    the biggest tell in this scam is the TOTAL disregard for the largest global warming gas in the atmosphere – water vapor.

    There’s a recent paper I read that blew me away with its clarity.

    Add to that Nikolov and Zeller, and Scafetta, et al these days and the whole AGW scam collapses… except in the spew from rent seekers and the moronic media clowns.

  3. gbaikie says:

    We are living in an Ice Age. And people ask what causes the warming.
    More sentient creatures might ask what causes the cooling.

    Does, “Light Bulbs Disprove Global Warming” ?
    “Detailed laboratory studies of absorption of radiation show that carbon dioxide absorbs less than 16 percent of all the frequencies making up the heat radiated by Earth. Just like LEDs, this limited number of frequencies absorbed by carbon dioxide does not constitute heat. This limited number of frequencies cannot cause an absorbing body of matter to get much hotter because it contains only a very small part of the heat required to do so.”

    16% is not that small. And if it was 100%, I am not sure it matters much.

    “Climate scientists argue that the thermal energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated, causing warming of air, slowing cooling of Earth and even directly warming Earth.”

    That Climate scientists can’t even agree, seems a rather convincing point.
    If CO2 absorbed 100% rather than 16%, would we be leaving this Ice Age anytime, soon?
    I don’t think so.

    I seems a lot Climate scientists believe there is a lot cooling in the upper atmosphere.
    I don’t think there is much cooling in upper atmosphere, but if one imagine a lot cooling occurs in upper atmosphere, it’s the greenhouse gases which is doing the cooling in upper atmosphere, then a magical CO2 gas which absorbs 100% rather than 16%, would be emitting 100% rather than 16%. Or it would have more cooling in upper atmosphere.
    But they would say, that makes it radiates at higher elevation. And basically it’s argued that if you make the atmosphere radiate at higher elevation, that this causes “global warming”.
    But as I say, I don’t think it radiates much in upper atmosphere of Earth.
    But due to lapse rate {or due to gravity} if air is warmer in the upper troposphere, I agree it does make the air warmer at the surface.
    And if warm air at the surface, it warms air in upper atmosphere {due to lapse rate {gravity}.

    Now what does absorb around 100% is clouds. Clouds are warming effect. And “climate scientists”
    don’t seem to agree about how much “warming” is done by clouds.

    But that we in Ice Age and worried about warming {that is roughly speaking} is never going to happen, perhaps it would useful to indicate why we in an Ice Age.
    An Ice Age is also called an Icehouse climate and they occur, when the ocean which covers 70% of the planet is cold.
    Our ocean has been cold for millions of years. And if it was a warm ocean, we would not be in an Ice Age.

    We have warm surface on top of a cold ocean, but it’s the coldness of ocean, rather than the surface of the ocean, which determines whether we are in Ice Age or not in Ice Age.
    But it’s the surface of the ocean, which determines what we call the global average surface air temperature. Also called the global average temperature,which about 15 C.

    But in terms of earth’s surface temperature, what important in terms of global climate is the average temperature of the ocean, which is about 3.5 C.

  4. oldmanK says:

    Taking a ‘prompt’ from gbaikie above “We are living in an Ice Age. And people ask what causes the warming.” We still don’t know.

    R Hannon had put the matter in very clear perspective at this thread here, see fig 3 at

    We are living in an Ice-age. What really matters is where that point is. Some time ago at the site ‘Climate Etc’ one by the name of ‘Javier’ pointed out the warm and cold cycles that run according to the Eddy cycle; roughly every 975yrs. I picked that clue and extended the cycle back into the past for what it might show. The 8k2 event marked prominently by Hannon in fig 3 was precisely at the trough of the Eddy cycle, again precisely where the LIA was eight cycles later. The cycle will peak to a warming some 100 yrs from today.

    I did some comparing with info from various sources (and as they say, the whole is bigger that the individual parts). The 8k2 event is there; so is the 7k2, 5k2, and one can also make out the events of the last two millennia. None were plain sailing, especially in the Holocene max. See link

    In spite of our own lofty ideas of ourselves, to Mother Nature we are just another kind of ape (a king without clothes). Kepler-90 is a reminder/warning; its not for us.

  5. oldbrew says:

    CO2 absorbs in limited wavebands, but emits a fraction of a second later. At 0.04% of the atmosphere, where’s the problem?

  6. dennisambler says:

    He replaces one dodgy theory with another, CFC ozone depletion.

  7. oldbrew says:

    This seems to be Ward’s argument:

    Fourier and most climate scientists today would argue that greenhouse gases slow the cooling of Earth, which Sun, therefore, makes hotter. But Planck’s empirical law shows that the only way for Sun to make Earth hotter is when Earth absorbs higher than normal amplitudes of oscillation at higher frequencies of oscillation. This is precisely what is observed to happen when the ozone layer is depleted. Greater than normal amplitudes of oscillation of ultraviolet-B radiation are observed to pass through the depleted ozone layer, reaching Earth. Ultraviolet-B is the highest frequency, most energetic radiation to normally reach Earth’s surface. The average temperature of Earth’s surface is determined primarily by the optical thickness of the ozone layer. The less ozone in the ozone layer, the greater the amplitudes of oscillation of ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth, causing Earth to warm.

    The author (Ward) made some comments to his own posting here about 2 months ago.

    He says the Sun is 350 times hotter than the Earth – must have divided by ~15 (Celsius).
    But 5700 Kelvin / 288 Kelvin = ~20.

    Screen capture from the video:

  8. Tim Spence says:

    Wow, I believed that CO2 did have some limited effect on the visible light spectrum but referring back to a few graphs of the absorption spectrum it appears that it doesn’t. Now I’m more confused.

  9. oldbrew says:

    About the importance of water vapor and carbon dioxide during the absorption of the Earth’s
    by Knut Ångström

    From these studies and calculations, it is clear, first, that no more than about 16 percent of earth’s radiation can be absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and secondly, that the total absorption is very little dependent on the changes in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content, as long as it is not smaller than 0.2 of the existing value.

    Click to access Angstrom1900English.pdf

    From a paper published in 1900.
    – – –
    Ward says: ‘This [16 percent] is percent of frequencies, not proportion of flux’…and…’Flux, in fact, is proportional to the difference in temperature between emitting and absorbing bodies.’

    He then gets some stick from ‘Geran’.

  10. gbaikie says:

    –oldmanK says:
    January 15, 2020 at 8:34 am
    Taking a ‘prompt’ from gbaikie above “We are living in an Ice Age. And people ask what causes the warming.” We still don’t know. —

    And: “The cycle will peak to a warming some 100 yrs from today.”
    I tend to agree.
    Or we seem to be recovering from the Little Ice Age and it could continue for another hundred years.
    Or longer or could have ended already, but recovery has ended, it’s unlikely to return to Little Ice Ages conditions within a 100 years.
    Since we are living in an Ice Age, the thing one could worry about is returning to condition like the Little Ice Age. And currently it seems there is a near zero threat of this happening any time soon.

    I think the Little Ice Age was global, because it seems global sea levels lowered {a little bit} and currently we in warming period because global sea levels have risen {a little bit}. Or it seems over last hundred years sea level has risen by about 7″ and about 2″ was due thermal expansion of the ocean. I would not bet that sea levels will drop 2″ in the next couple decades, nor does it seem likely they rise 2 ”

    It seems within hundred or hundreds of years our ocean temperature of about 3.5 C could increase to 4 C. And this would be the warming which the “end of world” related to “global warming”. Or that would be massive amount of warming. And it would be far more “climate change” than what occurred since we left the Little Ice Age.
    In our millions of year of the Ice Age, ocean temperature has been in the range of 1 to 5 C and I think 4 C, would be ideal temperature.
    If our ocean had average temperature of 4 C, I feel quite certain that the frozen tree stumps at arctic tree lines would become unfrozen, and we would have an “unprecedented” amount forest re-growth. Or it make the amount forest regrowth we have experienced in last several decades, look like a small amount. That alone would be massive climate change.
    It also seems with a 4 C ocean, that we would ice free arctic polar sea ice in the summer. And other than allow improved arctic transportation, it should also have “large” climate or weather effects.

    It also seems “possible” that 4 C ocean could result in very rapid increase in the greening of Sahara Desert. But rather than “possible” it seem likely that deserts in general should diminish.

    But despite such large changes, we will still be in an Ice Age. And Ice Ages have lots deserts and violent weather. But it seems possible we will NOT get an ocean which has average temperature of 4 C, not in centuries or even thousands of years. Long term it seems we will slide into glacial period- but hopeful, humans can understand climate well enough and have the technological and political ability to stop this from happening.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Someone mentioned Nikolov & Zeller…

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    Theories based on the partial pressure of trace gases such as CO2 are bound to fail.

    For a theory to have any chance of success it must include the “Bulk of the Atmosphere”. Richard Lindzen explains junk science better than most people:

    Click to access lindzen.pdf

    The Arrhenius (1896) theory would have been tossed in the trash can long ago but for its usefulness in promoting an agenda of “Carbon Mitigation” that requires the subordination of the citizen to the state.

    Thank God for Donald Trump who today told the globalists in Davos how cheap energy saves money and dis-empower the bureaucrats who want to control every aspect of our lives.